Why did the NCAA make 12 seeds play an extra game in the tourney?

Stands to reason that if you're going to make teams play extra games, you'd make the 8 lowest seeds play each other. So why aren't the 16 seeds all playing extra games instead of screwing with 12 seeds (a line on the bracket that's been about even money to advance)?

Stands to reason that if you're going to make teams play extra games, you'd make the 8 lowest seeds play each other. So why aren't the 16 seeds all playing extra games instead of screwing with 12 seeds (a line on the bracket that's been about even money to advance)?

Click to expand...

I've been wondering the same thing. I think the answer is that this most recent expansion of the tournament to 68 was mostly geared towards adding a few extra spots for at-large teams. Since the last at-large teams in NCAA tournaments don't usually go lower than 12 seeds, you're essentially penalizing these teams for being the last of the at-large bids, and then the bottom four automatic qualifiers will play as 16 seeds for the right to take on the 1 seeds.

kinda screws the 5/6 seeds as well. they have less time to prepare for an opponent than the past (4/5 days). 8/9 is a bad spot to be since you see a #1 if you win (thanks for playing), now 5/6 has a drawback, too. i guess 7 seed is the mid-range seed to fly these days.

I've been wondering the same thing. I think the answer is that this most recent expansion of the tournament to 68 was mostly geared towards adding a few extra spots for at-large teams. Since the last at-large teams in NCAA tournaments don't usually go lower than 12 seeds, you're essentially penalizing these teams for being the last of the at-large bids, and then the bottom four automatic qualifiers will play as 16 seeds for the right to take on the 1 seeds.

Click to expand...

I guess they didn't want to completely screw all the auto-bid teams, plus like you said the expansion of the tournament added 3 more at-large bids, so they must have figured that these last few at-large teams should kind of have to play their way into the "real" rounds.

64 was an absolutely perfect number of teams because it was a representative number of teams and everybody had to play 6 games. That play-in or "Opening Round" game they've had these past few years was stupid and this new "First round" isn't much better.

64 was an absolutely perfect number of teams because it was a representative number of teams and everybody had to play 6 games. That play-in or &quot;Opening Round&quot; game they've had these past few years was stupid and this new &quot;First round&quot; isn't much better.

Click to expand...

Agreed, they had it right to begin with. I don't think these extra games add anything to the tourney, except, extra teams. I realize there are some teams/fans who will be elated to have this opportunity, but to most of us purists, it's just watering down the soup.

Agreed, they had it right to begin with. I don't think these extra games add anything to the tourney, except, extra teams. I realize there are some teams/fans who will be elated to have this opportunity, but to most of us purists, it's just watering down the soup.

I know I'm in the minority, but if we have to have the play-in-games (which I hate), I prefer it be "at large" teams. One of the best parts of the tourney is watching the automatic bid little guys get to play in the big dance. Now, for the last few years, one team has had the reward for their awesome season (or run in the conference tournament) ruined with a trip to Dayton.

Of course, if CU has to play a play-in-game, I reserve all rights to change my opinion and rail about how the play-in's should only involve 16 seeds.

I know I'm in the minority, but if we have to have the play-in-games (which I hate), I prefer it be "at large" teams. One of the best parts of the tourney is watching the automatic bid little guys get to play in the big dance. Now, for the last few years, one team has had the reward for their awesome season (or run in the conference tournament) ruined with a trip to Dayton.

Of course, if CU has to play a play-in-game, I reserve all rights to change my opinion and rail about how the play-in's should only involve 16 seeds.

Click to expand...

Then put the last 8 at-large teams on the 16-seed line. And if that's so unfair to the 1 seeds versus having them play conference champions, then the champions of **** conferences shouldn't complain about an opportunity to get a tourney win in Dayton before getting beat by 60 against Duke.

I think they should go the opposite way on play-in games, and have it be the last eight in for all four 12-seeds. These will be far more entertaining games than the 16-seed play-in game that we have had the last few years.

I think they should go the opposite way on play-in games, and have it be the last eight in for all four 12-seeds. These will be far more entertaining games than the 16-seed play-in game that we have had the last few years.

Click to expand...

Do you find 16v1 games exciting? I'll take a 12-5 any day.

Reward the good teams. Those bottom 8 of all 68 should just be happy to get the invite. A 12 seed is a legit Sweet 16/Elite 8 threat.

Reward the good teams. Those bottom 8 of all 68 should just be happy to get the invite. A 12 seed is a legit Sweet 16/Elite 8 threat.

Click to expand...

I think it just makes the regular season matter more. Small conference teams get the right to play their way in to a tourney spot, and teams like Colorado still get a shot at a 12-seed, from which they have a very real shot at getting past the first weekend.

I think regular season conference play should matter. You say reward the good teams, but I say reward the teams that are the best in their respective conference. If you win your conference, you get in. If you win a big conference, you get to play a bad team. If you have to rely on a late at-large bid, then you have to do a little extra, but you still have a shot at making some noise.

i liked it better before the pod system, where every top seed would get sent to play a 25 win Mississippi Valley State team in cold gym in Ogden. neutralize the advantages, play basketball. institutional favoritism is all about the money, not sports. Except Duke and Carolina, the proto-pods, they'd play as either a flexible "East" or "South" team in Charlotte or Atlanta.

i liked it better before the pod system, where every top seed would get sent to play a 25 win Mississippi Valley State team in cold gym in Ogden. neutralize the advantages, play basketball. institutional favoritism is all about the money, not sports. Except Duke and Carolina, the proto-pods, they'd play as either a flexible "East" or "South" team in Charlotte or Atlanta.

Click to expand...

Since this thread is all about me...

I was in Ogden in 1994 to see Jason Kidd lose to UW-Milwaukee and Syracuse crush Hawaii.......